Identity Cards Bill

My brief does not provide me with a response to that point. However, this is a serious point and I shall do my best to answer it. As the noble Baroness explained, this is a probative amendment. However, if we were to accept it as it stands, it would remove the ability to register other names or aliases, previous names, informal or stage names which have not been ““legally”” changed, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, made a valid point in that regard. We have very good reasons for resisting the amendments as regards both customer convenience and the prevention of fraud. The difficulty with the amendments is that there is—as has been rightly pointed out—no definition of a legal change of name. Although some individuals use a deed poll for that purpose by no means all do so. A significant number of people merely change their name informally. I suppose that is what noble Lords do in their various guises. The register has been designed to be flexible and to accommodate the fact that a number of people use more than one name. Harry Webb, for example, might be a little perturbed that he cannot be known on the register as Cliff Richard just because he has chosen to use a stage name. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, observed, I believe on Second Reading, and as has been said today, many Members of this House are known by more than one name or, indeed, title. Of course, it is not intended that nicknames or family names of endearment should be recorded on the register—so I am lucky there—and it might be embarrassing if they were. We need to apply a common-sense touch here. We need to record the names that people use in interactions in their day-to-day life in the outside world. Naturally, an indecent name would not be acceptable as an alias. Amendment No. 83, if accepted, would have a detrimental effect on preventing fraud. Identity fraud is a serious problem and can occur when people frequently change their name and address in rapid succession in order to steal an identity or to create a new and/or fictional one. Currently, there is no reliable way to trace how often a person changes his or her name. The ID card scheme could go some way to provide this extra security. The recording of previous names on the national identity register is useful in terms of the convenience of those who are registered—customer convenience. For example, if an individual gets married or just decides to change their name, and wishes to amend their record on the NIR, organisations will be able to verify the individual against their maiden name or old name or their new name. That is far more secure than a simple marriage certificate, which is not a proof of identity and is capable of forgery, and much better than the deed poll process where there is absolutely no assurance that you are the person on the deed poll. In practice we intend to ask people as a matter of policy to provide a principal name that they are known by for all purposes—the name that they use commonly in the world at large, particularly with public and private sector organisations. This is part passport policy, which works well, and matches the aim to get people to provide a name that they use consistently in their relationship with government bodies. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I  think that we have consulted the Registrar General and those to whom we need to talk about names on registers. To clear up the point, I shall drop the noble Baroness a note to ensure that we have done so. I would be sad if we had not because it seems an obvious thing to have done. We have consulted fairly widely, and the approach that we have adopted should work.